NICE JOB!!!! Jet Blue 292 Crew.

I assume you meant the plane.....

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Loading thread data ...

"Gray Ghost" wrote

I was surprised that tires did not come off the rim, even when the lower portions had worn through and the wheel was being ground away (the source of the fire).

I was also surprised that the wheel or tire remnants did not ignite and burn after the plane stopped. IIRC there wasn't even any smoldering or smoke when it stopped.

KL

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

That's because contrary to what it looked like, there wasn't any fire. Just (a lot) sparking from the metal hubs grinding against the pavement. If you've ever seen an aircraft actually on fire, you'll remember it. I suppose there could have been some leakage of hyd fluid which may have burned off, but typically there are no brakes on a nose wheel assembly so I'd think that unlikely unless the gear collapsed...which it didn't. If the hubs had been titianium or magnesium they might have ignited (when I was working for GE we had this problem with CF-6 series engines with steel rotors and titanium cases - the cases could light off and burn during a compressor stall/blade rub...not pretty) - so I can only assume a good design choice of materials for those hubs.

Yes - I was suprised that the tires didn't ignite as well...in fact, it appeared that they actually surpressed the sparking eventually. Chalk it up to progess in materials tech?..

BTW - someone mentioned the fact that the strut remained extended as evidence that they hyds were operational, which also isn't applicable. Gear struts are serviced with thier own sources of oil and nitrogen which are typically independant of the the actuating branches of the system. Nosewheel steering will typicall be on one of the power branches, but I'd be shocked if the steering motor and the gear actuator branches were/are not somehow isolated - which is how such a failure mode might arise; nosegear down and locked, but cocked.

I did notice that the reversers weren't deployed - so the crew used braking and the resulting friction of the dragging nose gear only the stop the jet. I'd like to know if the touch down was any slower than what the book calls for - the jet did come to a stop with plenty of runway remaining, even though I thought the touch down point was a bit further down the runway than I would have liked it to have been. I'd also like to know at what point the crew cut the engines.

Reply to
Rufus

Sorry, Frank, I was exercising the weirder side of my sense of humour. However, I agree now that I've seen it more often. My first sight was about 30 seconds on the 11 PM news out of Philly and I was partly distracted at the time.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Reply to
Mad-Modeller

I was unaware that titanium was that flamable. Magnesium's abilities were shown to us in high school chemistry.

My question here is, do all Airbus nose gear twist 90 degrees before retracting? If not, how'd they get off with the strut in that position?

Bill Banaszak, MFE

Reply to
Mad-Modeller

AFAIK it rotates 90 degrees before retracting. The article below doesn't say one way or the other but insinuates that it does:

or

formatting link
"The problems with JetBlue Flight 292 marked at least the seventh time that the front landing gear of an Airbus jet has locked at a

90-degree angle..."

The article also addresses a couple of other questions I've seen posted here.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Thay do not rotate. I've posted a picture at abms to show the retraction.

Reply to
the Legend of LAX

Apparently they did on at least eight aircraft so far... ;-p

Reply to
Al Superczynski

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.